Good reads

Oil Prices

#ozaviation

CASA seeks to impale new costs on the aviation industry

CASA seeks to impale new costs on the aviation industry

The application by CASA to increase costs on industry, reported by Steve Creedy on Friday 2th March 2015, is to be deplored. Simply it demonstrates that CASA cannot budget, much less regulate and operate within normal decency, showing serious issues of misfeasance in it’s relationships with aviation as a whole.

There are numerous examples of improper dealings with the public [#PelAir] and the industry [Quadrio], with the less than honest dealings both in the legal and regulatory sense.

AUSTRALIA’S air safety regulator is calling for comment on a raft of new fees it is proposing as revenues from aviation regulatory services fall more than $25 million short of costs.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority predicts the cost of ­activities for which it charges will be $40.8m this financial year, resulting in a deficit of $25.8m and predicts this will increase due to inflation to $30m in 2018-19.

While it is not planning to raise existing fees, which have traditionally produced cost recovery revenue from aviation regulatory services of below $15m, it has proposed applying hourly rates to a raft of new areas.

Many of these are associated with the controversial introduction of new Part 61 regulations on flight crew licensing that have ­angered aviation groups at the small end of town.

They include new fees for testing, approvals, professional development and endorsements.

CASA has not raised its four-tier hourly rates since 2007 and currently charges $100, $130, $160 or $190 per hour.

Which rate applies to which area depends on the complexity involved, what administration is involved and whether it requires the skills of specialist staff.

The top hourly rate of $190 applies where a senior CASA officer or an officer with specialist experience and qualifications are involved.

These now include services involving regular public transport, aerospace and aerodrome regulations, corporate jet and multi-­engine helicopters as well as flight simulators.

CASA emphasises in its Cost Recovery Implementation Statement that it will not change its overall fee and expense profile.

It says the new fees were made necessary by the introduction of part 61 as well as Part 64 authorisations for unlicensed personnel such as ground crew as well as parts 141 and 142 relating to pilot training.

“There are no increases in any existing fees,’’ the proposal says. “CASA forecasts that the revised costs recovery arrangements will be revenue neutral.

“Increases in revenue and expenditure from the new fee items are expected to be offset by a corresponding reduction in connection with existing fees.’’

The authority’s audited financial statements show it lost $4.2m in 2013-14, when expenses of $184.9m outstripped revenue of $180.7m.

The loss was down from a $12m surplus in 2012-13.

Aviation regulatory services last financial year brought in $14.6m. The government provided $42.7m and the aviation fuel excise generated $120.10m.

The new fees are already raising the ire of those affected.

Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia chief executive Phil Hurst said there seemed to be a contradiction between CASA’s approach and government policy that new regulations should be cost neutral and red tape should be reduced.

Mr Hurst said the industry was also still waiting for Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to provide a letter of intent that gave effect to the findings of the Forsyth review on aviation safety regulation.

“And then CASA, oblivious to all that, puts out a draft CRIS which says they’re going to raise by their accounting 90 new charges,’’ he said.

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum, the peak body for aviation groups, last month urged Mr Truss as well as the new Civil Aviation Safety Authority board and the authority’s boss Mark Skidmore to pursue “a fundamental improvement in aviation in Australia”.

It called on Mr Truss’s letter of intent to direct CASA to follow a new path of co-operation that would cut outmoded regulation.